Rail Replacement Helicopter
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 447
Likes: 30
From: Europe
Obviously Swiss operators dont have the restrictions on Public Transport work that we have on single engine machines !
And ... oh the horror ... sometimes they even fly a net with stuff for a mountain hut and passengers at the same time. With just one engine. And only one pilot. And these guys aren't even IR-rated. No floats either.
Anyway, there isn't a lot of public transport with helicopters in Switzerland, a bit of heliskiing probably and the occasional big event in the mountains. But flying to your castle or manor isn't a thing there. There are very few VIP machines around, compared to all the Ecureuils doing all sorts of aerial work, which are the bread and butter jobs in the Alps. EMS is twins only by now. There is much more EMS flying than public transport.
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 447
Likes: 30
From: Europe
Actually Hughes500, every country has the EASA rules and some local rules. For example, in Germany landing outside an airport with a helicopter for a privat pilot, is just something that is unthinkable. The horror. The rules Germany implies for helicopter landing sites are absolutely nuts. In Switzerland you need a permit for landings outside an airport, which anybody can get, for a certain amount of money. No training required. Just pay and you'r good. I suppose that the Swiss FOCA just can't stand the fact, that anybody could land somewhere without paying a landing fee. That just goes against anything they believe in. On the other hand, you can not land a helicopter above 1100m without having a mountain rating. As a private flight, you can land only at designated landing sites above 1100m. As a commercial operator, things are different, they can land above 1100m for their work anywhere. Heliskiing is only allowed at specific sites also. I think France, Austria and Italy also have their rules for flying in the mountains. Yes, EASA members have the same rules and special rules for every country. And maybe the interpretation of the rules might just differ a bit from country to country.
A friend a mine, a private pilot in Germany, is very happy with EASA, because it made some things much easier, much to the chagrin of the German FOCA, which is considered the highest unlit obstacle in Germany.
A friend a mine, a private pilot in Germany, is very happy with EASA, because it made some things much easier, much to the chagrin of the German FOCA, which is considered the highest unlit obstacle in Germany.
Last edited by Rotorbee; 10th November 2023 at 18:19.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,111
Likes: 118
Actually Hughes500, every country has the EASA rules and some local rules. For example, in Germany landing outside an airport with a helicopter for a privat pilot, is just something that is unthinkable. The horror. The rules Germany implies for helicopter landing sites are absolutely nuts. In Switzerland you need a permit for landings outside an airport, which anybody can get, for a certain amount of money. No training required. Just pay and you'r good. I suppose that the Swiss FOCA just can't stand the fact, that anybody could land somewhere without paying a landing fee. That just goes against anything they believe in. On the other hand, you can not land a helicopter above 1100m without having a mountain rating. As a private flight, you can land only at designated landing sites above 1100m. As a commercial operator, things are different, they can land above 1100m for their work anywhere. Heliskiing is only allowed at specific sites also. I think France, Austria and Italy also have their rules for flying in the mountains. Yes, EASA members have the same rules and special rules for every country. And maybe the interpretation of the rules might just differ a bit from country to country.
A friend a mine, a private pilot in Germany, is very happy with EASA, because it made some things much easier, much to the chagrin of the German FOCA, which is considered the highest unlit obstacle in Germany.
A friend a mine, a private pilot in Germany, is very happy with EASA, because it made some things much easier, much to the chagrin of the German FOCA, which is considered the highest unlit obstacle in Germany.
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 447
Likes: 30
From: Europe
I believe that Italy, France, Austria and Switzerland are quite similar, regarding off airport landings. Home owners permission and a certain distance from structures. In Switzerland you also need that permission from the FOCA. It is a yearly fee for as many landings as you want.
Regarding flying in the Alps and your restrictions, that would not work. There just isn't the space. Have you seen the landing spot in the video? It is a football field dug out from a slope. There is no spot where you can autorotate to. Therefore they take that very small additional risk and take off vertically to gain altitude and then nose over. That avoids all those fences or cables low down you never see. You will not believe where farmers will string cables. And frankly I can't remember a single engine failure in Switzerland for I don't know how many years. There was one in Italy and one in Austria a few years back, but otherwise accidents in the Alps are normally running into things. Cables, cumumlus granitus, snagging the long line in trees, all sorts of interesting stuff to break a helicopter. I think the balance of risks works ok in the Alps. Not that a twin would not be better, but it would not be a viable business model for all those small operators. Anyway, there are not many twins (none?) that can compete with the B3 in the Alps. Especially not if one donk gives up the ghost. Therefore single engine it is because there just isn't an alternative.
Regarding flying in the Alps and your restrictions, that would not work. There just isn't the space. Have you seen the landing spot in the video? It is a football field dug out from a slope. There is no spot where you can autorotate to. Therefore they take that very small additional risk and take off vertically to gain altitude and then nose over. That avoids all those fences or cables low down you never see. You will not believe where farmers will string cables. And frankly I can't remember a single engine failure in Switzerland for I don't know how many years. There was one in Italy and one in Austria a few years back, but otherwise accidents in the Alps are normally running into things. Cables, cumumlus granitus, snagging the long line in trees, all sorts of interesting stuff to break a helicopter. I think the balance of risks works ok in the Alps. Not that a twin would not be better, but it would not be a viable business model for all those small operators. Anyway, there are not many twins (none?) that can compete with the B3 in the Alps. Especially not if one donk gives up the ghost. Therefore single engine it is because there just isn't an alternative.
Joined: Mar 2019
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 252
Likes: 29
From: Europe
I believe that Italy, France, Austria and Switzerland are quite similar, regarding off airport landings. Home owners permission and a certain distance from structures. In Switzerland you also need that permission from the FOCA. It is a yearly fee for as many landings as you want....
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 447
Likes: 30
From: Europe
Before we get into the twin vs. single discussion again - please don't - let me make a point. In principle twins are safer than singles. But...
1. Twins are more expensive to buy and operate, which makes most jobs out there just uneconomical.
2. Twins are more complex, which will reduce the safety margin against a single.
3. There are no twins out there, that are specifically built for aerial work, like the Lama was or the B3 is. To a certain extend also the H500. There isn't a twin, that can take the beating of logging for example, like those singles can (in that weight class!). And adding a second engine to a single never was a really good solution. Nobody wanted the TwinRanger and the Twin Ecureuil was even with two engines running not even close as performant as a ... let's say a BA. I don't have the numbers in my head, but it was a really weak ship compared to the singles.
4. I have the impression, that quite a bit of the added safety in twins, result from the fact, that they are flown more like airliners. Everything by the numbers, nothing by the seat of the pants.
Therefore. Yes twins are safer and I would not want to fly offshore in a single every day. But, the engine failure in a single is so extremely rare, that we just take the risk ... over land. In the Alps without those singles, many alpine farms would have to be abandoned. These singles are just needed as they are. The safety record for single engine helicopters regarding engine failure is outstanding and there isn't a twin that can take over these jobs.
Unfortunately for you H500, you have to live with the CAA now. In EASA-land your life would probably be easier.
Interestingly, even EASA admits, that Europe is worse than the US regarding helicopter accidents. We do not have any reason to be smug. But twins vs. singles will not change that.
1. Twins are more expensive to buy and operate, which makes most jobs out there just uneconomical.
2. Twins are more complex, which will reduce the safety margin against a single.
3. There are no twins out there, that are specifically built for aerial work, like the Lama was or the B3 is. To a certain extend also the H500. There isn't a twin, that can take the beating of logging for example, like those singles can (in that weight class!). And adding a second engine to a single never was a really good solution. Nobody wanted the TwinRanger and the Twin Ecureuil was even with two engines running not even close as performant as a ... let's say a BA. I don't have the numbers in my head, but it was a really weak ship compared to the singles.
4. I have the impression, that quite a bit of the added safety in twins, result from the fact, that they are flown more like airliners. Everything by the numbers, nothing by the seat of the pants.
Therefore. Yes twins are safer and I would not want to fly offshore in a single every day. But, the engine failure in a single is so extremely rare, that we just take the risk ... over land. In the Alps without those singles, many alpine farms would have to be abandoned. These singles are just needed as they are. The safety record for single engine helicopters regarding engine failure is outstanding and there isn't a twin that can take over these jobs.
Unfortunately for you H500, you have to live with the CAA now. In EASA-land your life would probably be easier.
Interestingly, even EASA admits, that Europe is worse than the US regarding helicopter accidents. We do not have any reason to be smug. But twins vs. singles will not change that.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 73
Likes: 2
From: uk
We are lucky and unlucky over here. EG we can land anywhere as long as we have landowners permission ( unless a single in a congested area ) our 500 ft rule is 500 ft away not above . But single engine public transport we have to have eg for a 500 263m in front of us ( distance fully loaded to get to vy ) with no obstacles in first 1/3 then after that the obstacle can be frangible ( ie one can crash through it ) Basically makes a single engine helicopter for public transport pointless , which was why I questioned the video with a single doing a vertical take off , a real no no in UK
